Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. and immediately drew the Board's attention to the minutes of the February 3, 2000 meeting. Minutes were held over until the next meeting.

Clerk of District Court Job Descriptions

Chair Miller inquired whether the Clerks from the four large districts had the opportunity to meet to discuss the job description for the Deputy Clerk of District Court III position to see whether or not it was going to meet the needs of their individual offices or whether we needed to create another position in between the Deputy Clerk of District Court III and the Clerk of District Court. Dorothy Howard explained that she met with Val Weaver, Deb Simenson and LaVonne Sigdahl, and after discussing the needs of their offices, they were unable to come to a consensus due to the fact that they structure their offices differently, LaVonne and Val both have two chief deputies and Dorothy and Deb have one.

Chair Miller inquired whether the Board needs to move forward with what's before them or discuss developing another position description. Justice Maring commented that she sat on the working committee that developed the job descriptions for the Clerk's office and during those discussions, there was no mention of a need to create another level other than what is currently before the Board for review. Dorothy explained that the reason why they discussed the Deputy Clerk I, II and III positions is that it would not limit them as to how they would structure their office, whereas if they would have a Chief Deputy position, it would. It would provide them flexibility.

Since there was no recommendation to create a position, the Board moved forward with adopting the positions and corresponding paygrades for each Clerk and Deputy Clerk of District Court positions.

Deputy Clerk of District Court I

The first position coming before the Board was Deputy Clerk of District Court I at a paygrade 3. Chair Miller informed the members that the difference between the consultant's January 26 recommendation and his January 4 is in the area of Factor 9, Mental Concentration. The consultant, after reviewing his initial recommendation and after consultation with other clerks and deputies, raised the level of detail from above average to high, a difference of 30 points. Dion Ulrich inquired why a similar position such as a Supreme Court Deputy Clerk II was only rated at 55 in that category. Carla Kolling explained that the ratings were based on what the Deputy Clerk II does in the District Court office and was not matched against other positions in other offices. Each position is rated individually. Greg Wallace said that his experience with those individuals that work in that capacity in the Clerk of District Court office are direct line workers and the level of detail that goes into their work is extensive. Paulette Reule inquired whether a new person coming into the office has to be hired as a Deputy Clerk of District Court I. Carla explained that if the applicant possessed the experience required of a II that person could be hired as a II. Paulette asked whether the only difference between a II and a III is experience. Carla explained that experience is one component but that the III position is designed to be an assistant to the Clerk with administrative and limited supervisory responsibilities. Paulette stated that a Deputy Clerk of District Court I would know their job before the two years required to be a Deputy Clerk of District Court II and therefore should be able to advance to a II before the two years is up. Dorothy disagreed. She said it takes a lot longer to become a well rounded employee. She said she agrees that the basic duties they will know, but the detailed things take much longer to grasp. LaVonne Sigdahl said that she supports the Deputy Clerk I and II being career ladder positions because it allows a I to advance to a II if the person is performing the duties. Judge Simonson inquired whether the decision was made as to who the hiring authority would be for the Clerks. Chair Miller explained that a proposed administrative rule concerning that issue is currently before the Court.

A motion was made by Judge Simonson, seconded by Justice Maring that the job description for the Deputy Clerk of District Court I be adopted and that the position be placed at a pay grade 3. The motion unanimously carried.

Deputy Clerk of District Court II

Chair Miller explained that the job description for Deputy Clerk of District Court II is the same as the Deputy Clerk of District Court I position and the consultant recommended the II be at paygrade 5.

A motion was made by Judge Simonson, seconded by Justice Maring that the job description for the Deputy Clerk of District Court II be adopted and that the position be placed at a paygrade 5. The motion unanimously carried.

Deputy Clerk of District Court III

Carla Kolling explained that it is being proposed that the position of Deputy Clerk of District Court III would be afforded to those offices at a one to five ratio, one Deputy Clerk of District Court III to each five employees. Those employees with less than five employees, not including the Clerk, would not have a Deputy Clerk of District Court III position.

Members inquired whether the supervisor/employee ratio of one to five is the current organizational standard. Carla explained that the ratio varies depending upon the type of jobs held in the organization. The more detailed the job responsibilities are, the lower the ratio would be. In visiting with Robert Bjorklund, he recommended a ratio of one to five or one to six. Jana Thielges provided information on the number of Deputy Clerk of District Court III positions available based on the number of employees allocated to that county. She explained that the numbers were based on the 1998/99 case filings.

For budgetary purposes, Jana compiled a listing of the county employees who are eligible for state funding and what their anticipated salary would be within the state system. She said the projections reflect that some employees may be frozen until the salary reaches their step and others may receive increases.

A motion was made by Judge Jahnke, and seconded by Judge Simonson to have one Deputy Clerk of District Court III for each four employees. The motion unanimously carried.

Participants inquired whether career ladder advancement is based on performance or if its an automatic movement of a position. Greg Wallace explained that the employees perceive it as an automatic movement of their position, however, the supervisor has to determine whether an employee is able to perform at that level and if they are they are moved. He said that there have been situations where an employee had not advanced until their performance had improved. In those instances, the supervisor had to develop a corrective action plan which provided recommendations that assisted the employees in improving their performance. He reiterated the fact that the way the policies are written the Deputy Clerk I can expect to move to the full performance paygrade 5 if they are performing after two years.

Dorothy Howard explained that she has employees in her office that would fit into the Deputy Clerk of District II position that have supervisory responsibilities and if the Deputy Clerk of District Court I and II positions were career ladder, she would have some II's with supervisory responsibilities and some without which may pose some difficulties for her. She said that those employees who would fit into the category of Deputy Clerk of District Court II's are supervising work and not people.

Chair Miller commented that as relates to the years of experience required for the Deputy Clerk of District Court III position, there are five positions above a paygrade 12, that have been recently reviewed, that do not require that many years of work experience. It was explained that certain positions place emphasis on education wherein others place emphasis on work experience. For example, law clerks are brought in with a certain base of knowledge in order to do the job where an employee in a clerk's office does not come in with the base of knowledge they must learn it through on the job experiences. Chair Miller commented that there are other positions under a pay grade 12 that require the equivalent number of years of experience such as the Assistant Supreme Court Law Librarian, Judicial Secretary, Judicial Secretary to the Chief Justice.

Judge Simonson suggested addressing whether or not the Deputy Clerk of District Court I and II be career ladder positions at the next meeting.

A motion was made by Judge Simonson, seconded by Rita Hannesson that the job description for the Deputy Clerk of District Court III be adopted and that the position be placed at a paygrade 7. The motion unanimously carried.

Clerk of District Court Job Description

Chair Miller drew the members' attention to the Clerk of District Court job description and explained that the Robert Bjorklund's initial recommendation reflected a paygrade 9 for a Clerk of District Court I (small counties) and 10 for a Clerk of District Court II (medium/large counties). However, since the clarification of Factor 2 and the requirement that Clerks need five years of experience in order to be considered a qualified applicant for the position, the paygrades have changed to a paygrade 10 for a Clerk of District Court I (small/medium county) and pay grade 11 for a Clerk of District Court II (large county).

Norine Knudson inquired why the point assignment on Factor 4, Policies and Procedures, for the small/medium counties are different than the large counties. Carla Kolling explained that it has to do with the total number of employees in the office. Greg Wallace said that the large counties fall into a different range of points, based on the number of employees.

Justice Maring inquired as to why Mr. Bjorklund raised the points assigned to Factor 9, Level of Detail, on the Deputy Clerk ratings and not on the Clerk. Greg explained that the question was posed to Mr. Bjorklund, and he responded by saying that for those employees who do it on a day-to-day basis, the level of detail is greater. Once you hold a supervisory position, although you need to know the detail, it does not encompass their entire day, their daily job is supervising people.

Judge Simonson stated that a Clerk who was elected in 1998 may not possess the minimum work experience requirement as set forth in the job description. Chair Miller commented that the Board may need to recommend to the Supreme Court that those Clerks be grandfathered into the system with their current credentials, and the job requirements would apply to any "new" clerks coming into the system after becoming state funded.

It was discussed that one of the reasons the working committee agreed on requiring five years of experience for the Clerk of District Court position is that there was no advanced education beyond high school required and therefore experience working in a clerk's office or court setting needed to be emphasized.

Dion Ulrich expressed concern over moving the Clerk of District Court position to a paygrade 10 and 11 based on five years of experience. He stated that when you look at the system when it was created in 1991, there were no positions that were awarded points for five years of experience except for the State Court Administrator. Carla Kolling expressed concern over lowering the experience requirement for fear of not attracting qualified and experienced applicants. Paulette Reule agreed. She said that at the time the job descriptions were being developed by the working committee, the members all felt that the job experience was paramount to the degree and that although a degree would be beneficial, experience is essential. Norine Knudson stated that when the county contracted with a consultant to do a review of the county classification system, the proposal they developed mirrored the paygrades recommended by Mr. Bjorklund.

Judge Simonson moved to make all Clerks of District Court throughout the state at a paygrade 9. That would represent the same model that's used for district judges. The motion received no second.

Judge Simonson inquired as to whether the Clerk's duties would remain the same as set forth in the statute. Carla Kolling commented that the Court Services Administration Committee addressed that issue and a proposed rule is currently before the Court for consideration.

There was concern expressed that the experience requirements for the Clerk of District Court position may be too strict. Members and guests stated that the position may interest attorneys if the position and paygrade was attractive enough,

A motion was made by Judge Jahnke, seconded by Rita Hannesson to adopt the Clerk of District Court job description and assign a paygrade 10 to the Clerk of District Court I (small/medium counties with eight or less employees) and paygrade 11 to the Clerk of District Court II (large counties reflecting over eight employees). Motion carried with one dissent, Dion Ulrich.

Chair Miller requested Jana Thielges to put together budget proposals for the Board's consideration at the next meeting. The proposals will provide funding options for the Clerk and Deputy Clerk of District Court positions.

Carla Kolling informed the Board that the portion of the job descriptions for the Deputy Clerk of District Court I, II, III and Clerk of District Court addressing "Knowledge, Skills and Abilities" possess the same terminology and expectations. She explained that the skill level of a Deputy Clerk I is different from that of a Deputy Clerk II and III and also the Clerk and that there exists a progressive level of skill as you advance in the various positions. Carla recommended removing the word "thorough" from the beginning of each sentence under "Knowledge, Skills and Abilities" section of the Deputy Clerk of District Court I job description. A motion was made by Justice Maring, seconded by Judge Jahnke to remove the word "thorough" from the beginning of each sentence under the section entitled "Knowledge, Skills and Abilities" of the Deputy Clerk of District Court I job description. The motion unanimously carried.

Carla Kolling recommended changing the word in the Knowledge, Skills and Abilities section of the Deputy Clerk of District Court III job description from "thorough" to "advanced" recognizing that a person holding the Deputy Clerk of District Court III position is expected to possess a knowledge and skill level above that of a Deputy Clerk of District Court II. A motion was made by Judge Simonson, seconded by Justice Maring to replace the word "thorough" with "advanced" in the section entitled "Knowledge, Skills and Abilities" of the Deputy Clerk of District Court III job description. The motion unanimously carried.

Carla Kolling recommended replacing the word "thorough" with "extensive" in the Knowledge, Skills and Abilities" section of the Clerk of District Court job description. She explained that a person who holds the position of a Clerk must possess a skill above that of a Deputy Clerk of District Court III. A motion was made by Judge Jahnke, and seconded by Judge Simonson to replace the word "thorough" with "extensive" in the section entitled "Knowledge, Skills and Abilities" of the Clerk of District Court job description. The motion unanimously carried.

Policy 119 - Harassment

Chair Miller drew the Board's attention Policy 119 - Harassment and its attachment the Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson case. Chair Miller explained that at the last meeting she requested Carla Kolling to contact Sarah Andrews Herman to see if the use of the word "unwelcome" was part of case law and therefore should be used in the policy. Carla informed the members that she had contacted Sarah concerning the inquiries of the Board and Sarah provided reference to the Meritor Savings Bank case. Carla also explained that the North Dakota Domestic Relations and Persons Act also uses the word "unwelcome" in their definition of sexual harassment.

A motion was made by Justice Maring and seconded on Judge Simonson that Policy 119 -Harassment be approved and submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration. The motion unanimously carried.

Juvenile Court Job Descriptions

Carla Kolling explained that the working group made up of directors and court officers has met twice and should have a product for the Board's consideration at its June meeting.

Policy 102 - Leave

Chair Miller drew the Board's attention to Policy 102 - Leave. Carla Kolling explained that section on Conference Leave was inserted back into the policy at the direction of the Board at the February 3 meeting. A motion was made by Justice Maring, seconded by Rita Hannesson that Policy 102 - Leave be approved and submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration. The motion unanimously carried.

The next meeting of the Board will be held on April 4 via conference call.